Talk:List of Texas county name etymologies (A to J)

From VfD:

This material has been incorporated into the individual county articles. Also includes List of Texas county name etymologies and List of Texas county name etymologies (K to Z). - Kenwarren 03:56, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * KEEP! Now, I don't care if the information is incorporated into the individual county articles, but I DO care about deleting List of Texas county name etymologies (A to J) and List of Texas county name etymologies (K to Z). What if you wanted to find all the county etymologies in one fell swoop? Look at List of California county name etymologies and List of Minnesota county name etymologies! I contributed much to the page, and I do not want my hard work destroyed. Dralwik
 * I have two reasons for this:
 * First, it creates a maintenance nightmare. Who's going to know to update both locations? Dralwik above probably won't bother with future edits, based on his comment. Once the information is out of sync, both sets of pages are, umm, screwed. The information is no longer trustworthy. To be blunt, this is a problem with Wikipedia in general; I've heard from several people who've uniformly said "Yeah, there's a lot of information, but I looked at 2 articles about aspects of X and they were contradictory. Which one do I trust?" (If this vote goes for keep, I feel strongly enough about this that I'll remove all etymologies from the individual articles for the same reason.)
 * Second, it doesn't make the information easy to find, one of the primary purposes of an encyclopedia. (Wouldn't the Principle of least astonishment apply here?) If I want to know how El Paso County, Texas came to have that name, where would I expect to look? At the article about the county, of course. If I didn't find it there, why would I look at Texas to find a link to List of Texas county name etymologies? For the anonymous user who says "don't destroy my hard work" I would say it's not destroyed, it's migrated to where it's actually useful. And I was planning to do the same thing to Minnesota, California, Kansas, and Arizona.
 * Kenwarren 14:13, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. Note for above: I AM going to continue editing and creating the afore-mentioned pages and I am creating links on each county page to the etymology lists. (See Anderson County, Texas, for example.) Dralwik
 * See my edit to Anderson County, Texas for what I think could be a good compromise; the information will live in the "List of ..." pages, a single location, but is easily available from the individual county pages. - Kenwarren 15:02, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. Although the material that was completed was imported into the individual county pages, there was much left to do.  The pages stated that they were a work in progress.  These pages were VERY useful for those of us contributing the county name information as we could see at a glance which counties were left to do.  Unfortunately, there were still a lot left to go and now we have to go look at each individual county page which is a much more tedious process.  I wish Kenwarren would have discussed it a little further before he erased all the work we had done.  I thought he was just going to copy the info.  Once the pages were complete, then would be the time to transfer the information if necessary.  Anyway, I think it's still interesting to see all the names at a glance. H2O 19:16, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree with Kenwarren's criteria for judging obscure lists.  If the pages are useful to contributors, maybe they can be moved to some meta-space or a user's workspace?  Incidentally, even if this is kept, couldn't it all fit into one article pretty easily rather than splitting it up A-J K-Z? -- WOT 21:17, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion